DR McCulloch← WORK
PILEARYTIX · A LOCUS-COERULEUS INSTRUMENT

One knob,
a whole self.

“NA level is arousal. The LC-NA system is the model’s arousal mechanism. There is no separate ‘arousal’ abstraction that then derives NA — that is circular.”

taxonomy-below-situations.md, design principle 4

Drag a self from coma to optimal to collapse and eighty cortical regions rearrange as you go, all of it driven by one brainstem nucleus working two dials. Every readout is either a lookup into a real six-thousand-point simulation or a live pass through the model's own gain equation.

ENTER THE INSTRUMENT
I

The heartbeat

One oscillator sits under everything downstream. The Locus Coeruleus (a nucleus the size of a grain of rice) is modelled as a single FitzHugh-Nagumo unit: a firing-rate proxy v chased by a recovery variable w. Feed it a gentle current and it settles into a steadytonic murmur; drive it harder and the same unit snaps into sharpphasic bursts. Only the positive excursions release noradrenaline into the cortex.

a = 0.7  ·  b = 0.8  ·  τ = 12.5  ·  Itonic = 0.65  ·  Iphasic = 1.5src/models/lc.py

Sustained moderate input drives a broad network-gain increase across the connectome.
II

The one knob

The dashed line is the theory, the real inverted-U gain function (Arnsten 2011). The orange trace is what the model actually produced: the sweep’s own mean excitation, normalised to fill the axis, so it climbs almost monotonically and refuses to fall, ignoring the inverted-U it is meant to follow (the raw Hz barely move at all; Act V shows how little). Move the playhead up the arousal spine, with a pointer, the arrow keys or the slider below, and the cortex, the qualia and the caption re-render from the model.

theory — analytic inverted-Ureal — mean_exc, normalised
NORADRENALINE coma → optimal → collapse · per hemisphere
NA 0.50TP 0.30mean_exc HzOPTIMAL GAIN

THE CORTEX FIELD

80 AAL2 regions · brightness = each hemisphere's inverted-U gain(NA) × its NET density

LC-DRIVEN MODEL LOADS

nc-model bridge · loads > 0.30

An illustrative bridge between the two models on this page. The developmental cascade model (Act VIII) runs with neurotypical defaults everywhere except the shared LC / NE parameters (each hemisphere's NE tone and the tonic–phasic mode), which are driven live from the arousal state above. None of this is a reading about a real person, since a momentary arousal state carries no developmental history with it. It only shows what the cascade does when its LC / NE inputs alone are perturbed and everything else is held neutral: at rest it reproduces the pure neurotypical-default output.

    awaiting the parametric model…

    THE FIGURE

    one self, drawn from the seven readouts · re-embodies live

    A single self, re-drawn from the seven qualia as you move the dials.

    OPTIMAL GAIN

    Loading the sweep…

    EMERGENT QUALIA

    7 readouts · L vs R hemisphere · normalised 0–1

      The two columns differ even at identical noradrenaline: the drive is symmetric, but each hemisphere reads its own connectome. Arousal runs right-dominant here, which matches the right hemisphere's known lead in global arousal and vigilance, while sustained attention and network stability lean left.

      III

      Magnets on the curve

      Click a preset and the playhead snaps straight to where that state sits on the inverted-U. A drug works differently: click it and the playhead slides by the width of a real pharmacological mechanism instead of jumping. Both are the model’s illustrative hypotheses and not clinical fact. The receptor geography under them is measured, but where each landmark lands was set by hand.

      STATES OF ONE MIND situational contexts · presets.py

      CLINICAL PROFILES LC-NA dysfunction · presets.py · illustrative

      PHARMACOLOGY each agent nudges NA along the axis · drugs.py

      IV

      The whole space

      The playhead lives inside a plane. This is a 41×41 downsample of the full closed-loop sweep (NA against tonic-phasic balance) from an 81×81, 6561-point neurolib run. Every value is min-max normalised per metric, because the raw field is nearly flat. Hover to read a cell; click to send the instrument there.

      lowhighhover the field
      V

      The flatness of a modelled mind

      Sweep the whole plane and the mean firing rate barely moves. Mean cortical excitation ranges only from 18.25 to 20.40 Hz across all 6561 states. Below NA ≈ 0.15 the model returns 18.273 Hz exactly, the same number for every setting of the second dial. Of the full sweep 1,406 states fall in that floor bin, and 1,022 of them sit pinned at precisely 18.273 Hz.

      A mind flattened to two numbers is mostly a plateau with a couple of cliffs. The structure you feel in the instrument lives almost entirely in the normalisation and in the seven derived qualia: the rawselective-attention channel spans 0 to 4.2 while the channel called arousal barely twitches. A model built to be about arousal says almost nothing with the quantity it calls arousal.

      “Receptor geography is empirical (Hansen et al. 2022 PET data). The mixing weights … and the overall scaling coefficients … are hand-tuned parameters chosen for numerical stability. Situation profiles are illustrative defaults, not literature-derived values.”— taxonomy-below-situations.md, principle 7

      This piece is algorithmic frottage, a mind rubbing against a statistical model of itself, keeping every crease the model admits to.

      Distribution of mean_exc (Hz) across all 6,561 sweep points. The tower at the left edge is the dead zone the model cannot escape at low arousal. Hover a bar to read its count.
      VI

      The geography

      “Every term has receptor geography. No uniform scalars applied to all 80 regions.”— taxonomy-below-situations.md, design principle 1

      What stops the one dial from being a flat multiplier is the map underneath it. Nineteen PET receptor densities from Hansen et al. (2022), measured across 1,238 people, give every region its own sensitivity. Prefrontal cortex is rich in the noradrenaline transporter and moves hard when the dial turns; primary visual cortex barely notices. This map is the one part of the model that was measured rather than tuned.

      SystemReceptors & transportersRole in the model
      NorepinephrineNETthe arousal transporter — proxy for LC innervation density
      DopamineD1 · D2 · DATPFC executive drive — inverted-U on D1 (Gs), monotonic gate on D2 (Gi)
      Serotonin5-HT1A · 5-HT1B · 5-HT2A · 5-HT4 · 5-HT6 · 5-HTTaffect and stress — limbic inhibition, sensory excitation
      Acetylcholineα4β2 · M1 · VAChTcortical engagement — pro-attentional gain
      GlutamatemGluR5 · NMDAthe excitatory backbone
      GABAGABAainhibitory stability — the E/I brake
      HistamineH3wakefulness modulation
      CannabinoidCB1network-stability term
      OpioidMORaffective weighting

      The model is cortical only, 80 AAL2 regions grouped into the seven Yeo networks, with no subcortex to turn: no thalamus, striatum or amygdala.

      VII

      Grounded and hand-tuned

      The most honest document in the repository is an inventory of its own soft spots, roughly 120 named constants sorted by how much of the model’s character they invent. The geography is measured, but almost everything that turns it into a feeling was set by hand for the numbers to behave.

      Tier 111 params
      Gain shape
      mue_ext_mean 1.2 · NA_OPT 0.5 · NA_FALL_WIDTH 0.3 · NA_HIGH_DECAY 2.0 · GAIN_FLOOR 0.2 · FEEDBACK_GAIN 0.3
      hand-tuned
      Tier 218 params
      FHN + secondary
      LC_A 0.7 · LC_B 0.8 · LC_TAU 12.5 · I_EXT_TONIC 0.65 · I_EXT_PHASIC 1.5 · LC_COUPLING 0.05
      hand-tuned
      Tier 357 params
      Qualia weights
      7×7 network→dimension weights + receptor→dimension modulation — decide whether presets separate on the radar
      hand-tuned
      Tier 433 params
      Normalisation & display
      signal reference ranges, qualia score ranges, desensitisation constants
      hand-tuned

      I’ve half-built a plan to fit these constants against real neuroimaging data and let the optimiser tell me which of my hand-tuned guesses were wrong. Until then the model is what it admits to being: an empirical map carrying a stack of plausible coefficients and one very confident dial. The work is in dragging a mind across that honestly, guesses and all.

      VIII

      Sliders → predicted diagnoses

      A second model rides beneath the first. Where the instrument above turns one arousal dial, this one exposes the whole developmental cascade: fifty-one free parameters (genes, neural-crest counts, neurotransmitter tone, environment, medication) feeding a fitted network of 157 DSM criteria into seventeen diagnosis loads. Every weight was learned against the ABIDE and ADHD-200 cohorts. The whole computation is ported to run live in your browser; move a slider and the diagnosis bars re-solve from ~235 formulas.

      verifying the port against the ground-truth model…

      DEVELOPMENTAL PARAMETERS

      PREDICTED DIAGNOSIS LOADS

      17 outputs · bars redden past 0.50

        DERIVED SIGNALS

        computed sliders · live from the cascade

          This is a research parametric model rather than a diagnostic tool. The bars reproduce the model’s own outputs faithfully in JavaScript, not a clinical judgement about any person.

          IX

          The cohort

          None of those weights were invented. The parametric model was fitted to real, publicly labelled neuroimaging cohorts: the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange and the ADHD-200 sample. Below, the fit is tested on subjects it never trained on.

          TRAINING RUNS 30 fits · AUROC and severity-r on the held-out set

          AUROC (ASD vs control)severity Pearson rbest combined fit (shipped)hover a run

          REAL SUBJECTS 600 sampled ABIDE subjects · model load vs clinical severity

          ASD (labelled)Typical control (TDC)hover a point

          FITTED SUBTYPES four data-driven clusters · deviation from the population mean

          Honest limits: the held-out validation set is small (≈250–274 subjects), the strongest AUROC and severity-r cannot both be claimed by a single run and the labels are research diagnoses, not clinical adjudication. It is a strong-but-not-clinical parametric fit: an illustration that a mechanistic developmental cascade can separate real cohorts, not a screening instrument.— nc-model-ml · ABIDE I/II + ADHD-200 · n≈2424